list_plugin_repo_versions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, specifies the output fields, and even names the HTTP endpoint. It does not discuss auth or error behavior, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool the description is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences deliver the action, resource, output fields, endpoint, and usage context with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what is listed, what fields are returned, the endpoint, and the intended use case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The 100% schema coverage plus the lack of parameters makes the baseline 4 appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent commits on the Tdarr plugin repo'. It also enumerates the returned fields (SHA, date, message, author), making the tool's behavior unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like check_for_update or update_community_plugins.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Use it to see what changed upstream before pulling plugin updates' gives a clear intended context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to 'before pulling plugin updates' effectively separates it from update-oriented sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.